On this, the first year of the Abbott Government, Tasmanian Times re-publishes the prescient words of Independent Member for Denison Andrew Wilkie. These observations - made by Wilkie at a Tasmanian Times lecture in the Town Hall, Hobart - were first published on October 6, 2011; particularly relevant are his observations of national politics ...

Corrected transcript • There is a chronic lack of leadership in this state, a chronic lack of leadership. I do believe that Lara Giddings is a good human being. I do believe David Bartlett is a good human being. But neither are the sort of dynamic, inspiring leaders that we need right now. There is a real shortfall of confidence and enthusiasm in this state. We need the sort of leadership figures to come through that pick us up and drag us along for the ride, that inspire us. We’d best not go through all of the Members of the assembly and council one by one but I think it would be fair to say that there are precious few inspiring leadership figures amongst the whole lot of them; there are a small number but there aren’t a lot of them. I think in a healthy functioning democracy just about the whole lot of them should be that inspiring figure that can pick this state up, change it in the way it needs to be changed for the future and take us into that future in a confident and prosperous and sustainable way.

• Instead we have this confrontational dynamic which jars with the power sharing and which is fundamentally at odds with what the public needs right now. We need people to just settle it down. I have to be pretty careful saying this, we need Kevin Rudd and his Bex and a little lie down. But I’m not advocating that Kevin Rudd return.

• Corrected transcript

Thank you to Tassie Times for being the beacon of quality journalism that you continue to be in this state. I am sure we would be much the poorer without Tasmanian Times and Lindsay Tuffin. So thank you. I was going to acknowledge the presence of Deputy Lord Mayor and Greens mayoral candidate Helen Burnett but as I sat there and saw everyone coming in I realised I think we have every candidate for every position in the Hobart City Council, there are some from Clarence City council, some from Glenorchy City Council, and Bill Harvey the vice mayoral candidate, so please excuse me if I don’t go beyond that in acknowledging everyone other than to say I think about seven out of 10 of the people who are here are council candidates.

I’ve also got to add that I feel like a bit of a fraud, a public speaking fraud in that I am in the presence of Richard Flanagan and Peter Hay who are beautiful public speakers and I can’t hope to get anywhere close to the way they speak. And I feel like an analyst fraud because of Dr Kevin Bonham here. If anyone should be teasing out what’s going right and wrong in politics in Australia at the moment I think Dr Bonham would probably do a much better job than I. So I think what I’ll bring to this forum tonight is probably a more practical set of observations as a participant, a practitioner, in what are momentous political times in this country, and in this state – and I’ll have some views to share about state politics as well in due course.

Dealing with the question of whether or not politics has failed us is obviously deeply subjective. At the federal level for instance, a passionate Gillard supporter might be quite happy with the current situation, while a passionate Abbot supporter might be horrified about what’s going on in Canberra. Moreover the issue is obviously quite complex because there are different understandings of the meaning of the word politics; there are different levels of governance to focus on: national, state and local, and different objective measures of the effectiveness of that governance. But for the need of somewhere to start, I will start by saying that at the federal level at least, where I’m obviously active and most familiar, I feel that politics is working much better than critics are prepared to give it credit for. For a start, the parliament in Canberra is genuinely representative.

The 150 members of the House of Representatives were fairly elected and the fact no one party or coalition of parties has an outright majority is in fact neither here nor there. In fact there was no great collapse in the vote of either of the major parties generally at the election – I think the only remarkable thing about what happened on August 21 last year was simply the closeness of the result. That was really the only remarkable thing. That so many people regard the hung parliament as being somehow illegitimate reflects I think their unfamiliarity with such a situation, or more often their continuing unhappiness with the fact that the Coalition didn’t win. And I am quite sure that many people who are complaining about the hung parliament right now would not be complaining if the Coalition had formed government and we’d have a whole new group of people complaining about how the hung parliament isn’t working.

I suggest also that the Federal Parliament has proven to be remarkably stable. You would recall that many pundits said it wouldn’t last three months, but we’re in our 14th month now. And there’s only been a single incident that I can recall that brought a nervous hush to the chamber, and that was when Robert Oakeshott (seemed inevitable didn’t it) miscalculated during a division which had the effect of signalling the parliament had lost confidence in the Speaker. To his credit, Tony Abbott immediately rose to move a motion of confidence in the Speaker which remarkably was seconded by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and carried straight along with a unanimous vote. This put the whole earth back on its axis and back to work we went. So for all the grand manoeuvring and scheming and forces at work to bring down the government, bizarrely the only point in time when the wheels came perilously close to falling off, was a slight miscalculation by one crossbencher on a procedural vote which effectively sent the signal that the parliament had lost confidence in the Speaker. This would of course have been a terrible situation if someone hadn’t moved a motion of confidence, as Tony Abbott to his credit did.

The Federal Parliament is also remarkably productive. In its first year, almost 200 pieces of legislation, that’s Bills and Motions, have been passed, not one government bill has been defeated, nor a single amendment to government legislation carried without the support of the government. This by the way is a much greater workload than the first year, in fact it is almost double the workload, of the first year of the Howard Government back in 1996. Through all of this, the Green, Adam Bandt, and independents Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and myself have obviously provided just certainty of supply and certainty of confidence to the government. But beyond that straightforward certainty of supply and certainty of confidence, I think the four of us, sometimes aided and abetted by the West Australian National, Tony Crook, independent Bob Katter, and even the Coalition, have also helped to make this a much richer Parliament than usual.

Stopped by bad policy ...

For instance, we’ve sometimes stopped bad policy. You will recall there was much discussion about the sale of the Australian Stock Exchange to the Singaporeans and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, spoke in great detail about all of the reasons why the sale didn’t go ahead. The reality was, he knew that almost all, in fact I think all, the crossbenchers were opposed to it, and the government simply did not have the numbers. It was that simple, but it was much better explained in more elaborate ways by the Treasurer. At other times, I believe the crossbenchers in the hung parliament have improved policy. For example the fact that the inner-regional zone for claimants of youth allowance, the only reason that has been abolished, thereby making it actually fairer for students in inner-regional areas, of which Hobart is, in fact the whole of the electorate is, the only reason that occurred was because the cross benchers put the weights on the government and said “if you don’t make that change we’ll support the opposition” and the government, concerned about having a major political loss on the floor, buckled and agreed to the change.

The crossbenchers have also been fortunate to have the opportunity to realise our own initiatives. For instance my Private Member’s Bill giving greater protection to journalists and their sources, was just the 18th Private Member’s Bill to become law since Federation. And since the 18th my colleague Rob Oakeshott has got the 19th up. So that’s remarkable isn’t it? There have been only 19 Private Member’s Bills become laws of the land since 1901 and two of them occurred in the last 13 months as a direct result of this hung parliament. Evidence I am sure of how this is a richer parliament than what happens normally where one party or a coalition of parties has a monopoly on power. The only reason the tax forum occurred this week was because the conduct of such a forum was a condition of support by Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. That is the only reason that forum occurred yesterday and the day before. I attended and can I add, it was not a ‘talk fest’, it actually ended up being a very good worthwhile exercise. So full marks to, in particular, Rob Oakeshott who drove it.

Moreover the move to put a price on carbon is probably the best example of the way in which a power sharing parliament allows for unexpected initiatives to bubble up. In my opinion Julia Gillard was genuine before the election when she said there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. But of course no one expected the remarkable result of last year’s federal election and I do believe that she felt her hand had genuinely been forced – a move which I’m tickled pink about, because as I’m sure you are all aware I’ve long been a strong advocate of putting a price on carbon. I would add that the senior political leaders who continue to call Julia Gillard a liar over this, know that her hand was forced, know that she made that comment before the election in good faith, and I would actually accuse those who call Julia Gillard a liar, I would accuse them of knowingly trying to mislead people. Of course there is no shortage of people in Australia, and I think most of them vote for the Coalition, who think the crossbenchers have too much power and would single out my poker machine reforms as evidence of a disproportionate amount of power being in the hands of one Member of Parliament.

But the reality is ladies and gentlemen, that many of the critics of the crossbenchers are just people still mad as hell that we decided to support Julia Gillard and not Tony Abbott. In other words if we had all helped to install Tony in the lodge the same people would be very happy with the hung parliament while again I’d say a whole new group of this time Labor Party supporters would be beating us up. And as far as poker machine reform goes, I’d suggest that the progress of this initiative should be seen as a triumph for democracy, not a failure. Because the reform has overall public support and not one party has a clear political majority to stop it in response to the power of vested interests. I should quickly add of course that the crossbenchers certainly don’t get everything our way, the most disappointing example for me being my ill-fated live animal export Bill, which would have banned the export of Australian livestock in three years time and in the interim put in place appropriate safeguards. As you know it was voted down by both the Government and the Coalition in a staggering triumph of vested interests over morality. What I can say tonight is that I believe I have now given the Labor Caucus more than enough time to address this issue and I will be giving formal notice next week, which is a sitting week, that I will be giving formal notice of a new private members bill that will legislate the safeguards that must be put in place before Australian livestock can be processed overseas. And my list will specifically include stunning, and I think that will be a very, very difficult private members bill for the government to deal with because it will have very strong support among the Labor backbenchers, so I hold out some hope that while I failed last time I can at least succeed this time.

Great reformist governments

The Coalition also gets into the act in some positive way for example they moved a motion to establish a committee to look into Australia’s mandatory detention arrangement and that was in fact supported by the Green, Adam Bandt, and myself, and that is why we currently do have a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s mandatory detention arrangements—moved by the Coalition on the right, supported by Bandt and Wilkie on the left and cornered the Government nicely in the centre. But that’s the richness of it. And it’s a richness which I will make a comment on later, which we have not seen in the Tasmanian Parliament where there is the possibility of such remarkable outcomes.

So has politics at least on the federal level failed us? On balance ladies and gentlemen I don’t think so. I think last year’s federal election was conducted to a high standard of probity, in fact a highest standard as you would see in any country in the world. The country then ran smoothly for the 17 days it was without a formal government, there was no violence, there was no bloodshed, the country ran smoothly, the bureaucracy did its job, the caretaker provisions worked effectively and I think that is something we should be very, very proud of because there are very few countries in the world where you can have a 17 day hiatus like that and everything runs so safely and smoothly. And at the end of it, a stable productive government was formed which has gone about its business including a dizzying array of reforms including a price on carbon, putting a mining tax in place, poker machine and probably aged care reform, the establishment of a genuinely nation changing national disability insurance scheme, the list goes on.

I tell you what, if this government can pull off half of its reform agenda it will go down in history as one of the great reformist governments and I will be proud to say I was a member of a great reformist parliament. Now none of that is to say things are going along swimmingly all the time in Canberra. Obviously it isn’t. While I probably tend to see everything as normal in Canberra, because I know of nothing else, so obviously every time I see something for the first time I assume its normal. It is only when I look around at the looks on the faces of my parliamentary colleagues that I realise things are far from normal. Even I can see though that the environment in Canberra at the moment is absolutely toxic. Attacks are personal, and just about everything coming from the opposition is destructively negative. There is no sense of goodwill about the House, nor much interest in cooperation in any form. Tony Abbott in particular has proven to be remarkably capable of tapping into some of the most worrying fault lines in the community. One result being the disgusting letters and emails that crucial members of parliament are receiving, myself included obviously. Some of which are warranting Australian Federal Police intervention.

People who have been there before tell me they have never seen it so toxic, and they have never heard of such a disgusting stream of emails, letters, telephone threats and so on. There had to be something very nasty whipped up within the Australian community and it is quite unfamiliar to people in the parliament. I think what the Opposition have done in this regard is a complete and utter betrayal of the whole idea of power sharing in parliament which should be, and needs to be, cooperative in nature if the public interest is to be properly served. Instead we have this confrontational dynamic which jars with the power sharing and which is fundamentally at odds with what the public needs right now. We need people to just settle it down. I have to be pretty careful saying this, we need Kevin Rudd and his Bex and a little lie down. But I’m not advocating that Kevin Rudd return.

What does seem to be going on at the moment is serving the Coalition’s political self interest, although bizarrely not Tony Abbott’s personal popularity. And I think its, I am sure you’d agree it’s a remarkable situation where an opposition has polling numbers at dizzying heights and yet the leader of the Opposition is so relatively unpopular. Of course one of the problems we have got in Canberra at the moment is Julia Gillard’s baggage. I do think there are many Australians who are still uncomfortable, myself included, who are still uncomfortable with the way she came to power. It’s not the way we do things in this country. And I certainly would not want to see a repeat of that.

There is that perception I have already referred to in some circles that Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax, a perception which I do not share, I do believe she said what she said before the election in good faith. There are also the inevitable problems with big programs being rolled out very quickly, necessarily I would add because of the need to get the stimulus spending into the economy, and much of the publicity and problems obviously with the home insulation program and the Building the Education Revolution program, particularly on the mainland. You know Julia Gillard is carrying a fair bit of baggage and it is making it very hard for her to get any clear air. Again I think this helps to explain why the Coalition is travelling so well. Although I would add though, much of the unique current circumstances I do think will pass at the next election, or [with] a change in political leadership, because so much at the moment is to do with personalities. For example, if Malcolm Turnbull was to replace Tony Abbott as the Opposition Leader, that would be a genuine game changer in Canberra, and it would, I think, significantly influence many of the crossbenchers.

Three years is essentially too short ...

In other words ladies and gentlemen I think we are living at the moment in Canberra in unique circumstances which will almost certainly disappear come the next election, if only because any sort of cultural change that you might think is being started at the moment in Canberra, it needs more time than a single term of three years for that cultural change really to mature.

Before I leave Canberra I just want to say though there are some very, very well rehearsed, some issues that I seen in Canberra which I am sure are very familiar to you and I do think they ultimately do need to be addressed.

For a start the length of the Parliamentary term. Three years is essentially too short if only because a disproportionate part of the three year Parliamentary term is taken up with campaigning and in this remarkable Parliament, Tony Abbott has been in campaign mode from the day after the Gillard Government was formed. I do think in Canberra we should move to a four year terms and I do think in Canberra we should move to fixed dates which is what Tasmania has supposedly moved to take away the opportunity for incumbent Governments to be mischievous with the way they time the elections.

I do think also in Canberra there is much work still be done on the perennial issue of political donation, because let’s face it, no-one hands over a large sum of money to a political party or to a politician without also holding some hope of a political favour at some point in the future. To suggest that a wealthy individual or a large company hands over many tens of thousands of dollars just as an act of generosity would be kidding ourselves. I think it is little different to a paper bag of cash being handed over in a developing country and I would like to see significant reform of the whole political donations arrangements.

And then there is the dreadful state of political parties. And I’ve got to warn you here: no-one’s going to get out of this without me throwing a rock at them. I do think that none of the political parties are genuinely democratic, including the Greens which should be the exemplar of grassroots democracy. I think the Democrats when they were ascendant did stay true to their democratic model better than most and I do acknowledge that in the Greens some parts of the Greens are much better than others. Something I observed personally when I was a member of the Greens, when I was originally in the Greens in New South Wales, which was true to its grassroots democratic principles to the point of almost being unworkable. I then moved to Tasmania where I thought too often decisions were made by the senior officials or activists in the party and sometimes the grassroots members weren’t being heard enough and weren’t being consulted enough.

There has arisen in this country a political ruling class populated by graduates, who become political staffers and party apparatchiks some of whom then go on to become Members of Parliament. The ALP is obviously the most striking example of this but I would add no party is free of fault anymore. I do think that is a problem and I see it in Canberra where you have a political ruling class now within the chamber and I think it would be a richer Parliament if the people had gone out and got a job and done other things as well before they then became Members of Parliament. Now if they had a job where they actually had to read a balance sheet, where they had to hire someone, where they had to fire someone, where they had to build something, where they had to tear something down, they would have understood better how to run an organisation and I think we would have a richer Parliament. That’s not to say we can’t have people who go to uni then staff a Member of Parliament and be very good at it but I think as a general rule I’d like to see a different approach.

An alarming lack of authenticity

I do think in Canberra, and I’ve seen this, there is an alarming lack of authenticity and passion in many of our political leaders today, the likes of Bob Hawke, Bob Menzies, Gough Whitlam, Mal Fraser, Paul Keating and even John Howard. People like that, personalities like that don’t seem to be coming up through the party structures much anymore. You know, it is no accident that Bob Katter is so remarkably popular in his electorate. He’s authentic – they’re all like that up there. He’s authentic, and that’s what people want. People don’t even need to agree with you all the time but they do want to know who you are and they want to know your stance on something. We’re missing that bit these days and no wonder the Labor Party in particular is in dire straights. I think it is true that the Labor Party in some ways has lost its way philosophically, not to mention losing a whole lot of members to boot.

All of which I’ve been describing might help to explain this apparent rise of the independents. But I’m actually going to hose down that notion. I think the idea about the rise of the independents is actually being overcooked. In this Parliament, you know I’m actually the only new independent? It’s true – the other three, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, they were already in the last Parliament and the other two crossbenchers are actually party members. So I think it’s overcooking things to say there has been a rise in independents in this Parliament. There’s one extra independent.

Our profile at the moment is much more to do with the position we find ourselves in than us having carved out some new position somehow. Having said that, I do hope the high profile independents currently have does inspire more competent independents to have a go because I think there is no doubt that a lot of Australians have had a gutful with the downsides of party politics and are looking for something fresh. One of the reasons why I hope this Parliament works is because I want people at the end of this Parliament to say independents are valuable Members of Parliament we should support competent independents when we find their names on the ballot paper. I want to be one of the building blocks for the rise of independents sometime in the future.

Now, can I change tack and talk about state politics where I do think politics is failing us much more widely: here at the state level. Frankly, I think the parliament is a complete dog’s breakfast. There is a self-evident lack of quality. Frankly, there is no more than a handful of Members of Parliament, in both houses, who could be called competent. It is too small. Again, it is self-evident that 35 or so Members in the House of Assembly are needed if we are to give that house or allow that house to have the critical mass and depth it needs.

If we could only have a bigger House of Assembly by moving to a unicameral Parliament, i.e. a single House of Parliament, then I think there should be a mature public discussion about that. As we look for innovative and affordable ways to improve Governance in this state, I don’t think anything should be off the table including the abolition of the Legislative Council.

And perhaps some sort of model like the New Zealand mixed member proportional representation model, the MMP, which combines single-member electorates and multi-member electorates to have representatives from both of those sources elected in the same chamber. Perhaps that provides a good case study for us to look at and to say: is some sort of innovative solution like that the way to go? One of the criticisms, of course, of having an extra ten members of the assembly, added to the people in the upper house is just too many politicians. So we’ve got to look for innovative ways through that and I think we all need to be mature enough, and the government needs to be competent enough to lead a public discussion about that and not be frightened at anything in particular on the table.

There is a chronic lack of leadership in this state, a chronic lack of leadership. I do believe that Lara Giddings is a good human being. I do believe David Bartlett is a good human being. But neither are the sort of dynamic, inspiring leaders that we need right now. There is a real shortfall of confidence and enthusiasm in this state. We need the sort of leadership figures to come through that pick us up and drag us along for the ride, that inspire us. We’d best not go through all of the Members of the assembly and council one by one but I think it would be fair to say that there are precious few inspiring leadership figures amongst the whole lot of them; there are a small number but there aren’t a lot of them. I think in a healthy functioning democracy just about the whole lot of them should be that inspiring figure that can pick this state up, change it in the way it needs to be changed for the future and take us into that future in a confident and prosperous and sustainable way.

I’m still the same person I was in the Greens

But I don’t see that down there at the moment. I see some very ordinary people who when confronted with a problem or, for example, a need to save money from the health budget, do they look to deeply restructure it so we have sustainable savings into the future or do they just simply say okay we’ll get rid of 3000 elective procedures this year, you know, that’ll save so many million dollars. But that’s what they’ve done: simplistic cuts, instead of really well considered restructuring and initiative we’re not seeing coming from these people.

One of the problems in this state is a lack of an effective opposition and look I’m sorry I know there is a lot of Greens here in the audience tonight and I tell you I’m still the same person I was in the Greens a couple of years ago. I was at the moderate end of the party, politically about centre, and that’s still exactly the same place that I am. But we have got to be able to criticise and look critically at ourselves and the way we do business. I do feel personally, I know there will be a range of views in this room, that the Greens made an error of judgement by going into the Cabinet at this point in time. And one of the downsides of that decision is that there are issues over which the Greens used to be all over like a rash which you don’t hear squeak from now and I think that is a terrible, terrible shame. The Greens could be in the Cabinet in the future but I think it was the wrong time to do it now. And sure I’m biased because the way I approached supporting a Government is fundamentally different. All I have done for the Government is I have said I will support your Budget and I won’t support a reckless no confidence motion and everything else after that is up for grabs and negotiation. And I think particularly when you are in the early days of these sorts of processes; I think that is the safer, the more conservative way, just to edge forward. And it does affect the ability of the Greens to respond to things. You know Cassy O’Connor is the Minister responsible for poker machines and she wrote an opinion piece in the Mercury some months ago criticising me for not going far enough and fast enough on poker machines. She’s the minister! She can throw them out of the state next week. Case in point.

And there is an absence of an alternative Government. Not only do we need an Opposition, we need an alternative Government. And the Liberal Party is weak and uninspiring and it is not an alternative Government in Tasmania at this point in time. So if we don’t have an effective Opposition, if we don’t have an alternative Government, we don’t have inspiring leadership, we have incompetent financial management. No wonder we’re in this mess we are at the moment. It’s entirely understandable.

And I think there are some lost opportunities too. I described how Adam Bandt and myself voted with the Opposition to get an inquiry up into mandatory detention. Now we haven’t seen as much as that sort of cooperation in Canberra as I’d have liked to see, but we have seen a little bit, but we’ve seen next to none here. The Liberal Party and the Greens need to learn to work together and to talk together and where their interests overlap to get good initiatives up in the public interest and stop this sometime immature refusal to talk to each other. There is good in all political parties, there are good people in all political parties, there is nothing wrong with cooperating with your political adversary when your interests overlap. Particularly when it’s in the public interest.

Now I better wind it up. I’m going to recklessly talk about local government. Oh dear. I recklessly talked about local government once before and I got eaten alive afterwards. I’m sorry I think there are too many councils and I think opinion polls are suggesting that the public think there are too many councils. And I think that too many councils does create inefficiencies and does mean that some communities are served by councils which are small and under funded and you can’t get a fair and equitable level of services in those regions. I do think we need less councils. Ideally, they should be done of a voluntary basis. But we should be prepared, I learnt my lesson last time, we should be prepared to talk about all the options. Because if we are confident of our position then we are confident to talk about all of the alternatives including the alternative we don’t agree with. And if there is a compelling case for forced amalgamations, then that should be teased out. But if in fact it is a compelling case against forced amalgamations, then that should be teased out and the argument should be won on its merits in the community.

But whatever we do, we should be moving forward on this on because the status quo in my opinion is unsustainable, particularly as the cost of doing services is going up and up and up. And I think as we get less councils we might get more candidates. You know I notice at the moment, for alderman, alderwomen positions, I have counted, I hope this right, 146 positions and 283 candidates across the state, it’s actually a lot more candidates if you include mayoral and et cetera, but for the actual basic positions, there are only really two candidates per position and I remember reading in the paper the other day, it might have been the Tasman Council was six candidates for something like five positions, I think something like that, not good, we need more choice and people need to be more inspired to run and have a go because then I think we’ll get more candidates and we’ll get better quality councils and better outcomes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your patience, In closing I’d like to acknowledge tonight that I have sometimes been somewhat critical of people in Parliament and parties and I have not hesitated to throw a few stones around the room. Please understand the last thing I’m saying is that I’m any better than any of those people I have passed judgement on. In fact in some ways, I’m the worst offender of the lot. Because my support base cuts right across the political spectrum and every time I open my mouth or make a decision I disappoint someone. And I’m deeply sorry for that I just hope that if I have this job for three years, people will think on balance think I’m still OK even though I have disappointed them on one particular policy or another. I also acknowledge that I have made many bad decisions in my first 13 months but at the end of the day independents like me are by definition solo sailers without the gross error checks hopefully built into party structures. We independents just hope that you forgive us every now and then, including for the excesses borne of the need to capitalise on the fleeting power of one.

And as far as that question, which is the exactly the reason we are all here tonight, about whether politics is failing us, I reckon the answer is, sometimes yes. But to the logical next question, is the situation irreversible, I reckon the answer is only if we let it.

What was encouraging about last night’s talk by Andrew Wilkie was - for me at least - the expression of authenticity. Yes, authenticity… in delivery and honesty in recognition when the elected MP didn’t have the simplistic answer.

There was the frank admission that he was a ‘practitioner’ of the workings of politics under a rather rare minority Government arrangement thrown up once-in-a-blue-moon.

Andrew, to his credit, also encouraged other individuals in society with a committment to politics to look outside the Party structures (knowing the difficulties this creates for a candidate) and he shows that being authentic is the only way. Our established political Parties have a machine and an ideology (or manifesto) but with that comes control… anxious, total control.

Posted by David Obendorf on 07/10/11 at 04:53 PM

Andrew has baffled me.

If Lara and David Bartlett are “good people” after what they have done to the public who entrusted them, who the hell isn’t?

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 07/10/11 at 06:13 PM

Thanks Andrew for a thought provoking and incisive speech. One can only hope that you run for, but lose your seat at the next federal election!

Why run? You need to run so both Federal Labor and Liberal know they have a fight on their hands and don’t ignore Denison like they did last time.

But why lose? Because the likelihood of Independents retaining the balance of power after the next Federal election is infinitely smaller than the probability of the Conservatives achieving an outright majority.

As an Independent Federal member in a new conservative government, you would simply disappear from the public eye.

However, as an independent State member for Denison you would have a good chance to mirror your current balance of power position and potentially do another immense amount of good for the State.

Additional advantages could include more time at home and you wouldn’t even have to wait long, with a State election to follow shortly after the next Federal election. Call me an optimist but I reckon all you would need to do is put your hand up and you would romp it in. You wouldn’t even have to reopen the rug shop. (:

Posted by Hans Willink on 07/10/11 at 06:42 PM

Andrew, good speech and thanks for the words re; tax forum. We have further work to do to push governments - commonwealth and state - on this important issue.

Just one small correction. I didn’t “miscalculate” re; the naming of an MP by the Speaker which created a nervous hush as you describe. I was aware of what I was doing, and it is consistent with what I have always done.

Otherwise, good speech and see you in Canberra. Rob O

Posted by rob oakeshott on 07/10/11 at 08:30 PM

#2 Good people, shite politicians?

Posted by Simon D on 07/10/11 at 11:48 PM

Yawn…

Posted by Jarvis Cocker on 08/10/11 at 12:19 AM

#2 John….Once I had some idea that they may have been just that, but I was shooting at George Town in the “backdoor” Bartlett days and took a snap after the dynamic duo had just run the gauntlet of a distressed an hostile crowd.

They had smirks like a couple of primary school kids that had just gotten away with pulling the wool over someone’s eyes.

I was shocked with disbelief and the memory sticks firmly in my mind.

What I had expected was looks of worry and angst at why people could be so upset, but clearly they thought of them as lesser people.

I know that they don’t give a rats about the community.

Posted by Dave Groves on 08/10/11 at 07:02 AM

Personally, I believe it is the other way around. The public has failed its own political system. There is a constant noise from each angry individual wanting for themselves with little consideration of a common good. There is little patience and tolerance.

The world’s population is steadily aging and with it all the fears and dashed hopes. Everyone has an experience that “proves” they are right and the other person is wrong.

One doesn’t have to look any further than any media (including TT) to observe the actions and reactions.

Posted by Mark on 08/10/11 at 07:55 AM

#8,

Try Sturges for size.

Posted by john hawkins on 08/10/11 at 08:32 AM

Mark, it was the likes of neo-liberal politicians like Thatcher and Reagan that destroyed the idea of a ‘common good’ and the notions of citizenship and participative democracy promoted by leaders like Franklin Roosevelt. However, those promoting the ideas of community, selflessness and citizenship are today very much on the fringes of the debate, although their influence is growing again. Hopefully, the situation will continue to change as the authoritarian and reactionary face of what has been promoted over the last 30 years is unmasked.

Posted by John Alford on 08/10/11 at 08:42 AM

Mark 8. You say the public has failed politics. Interesting view and one based on experience I’m sure. I put it to you the real battle is between big business and ordinary people. The politicians are just cannon fodder for multinationals to keep the profits flowing. Here in Tasmania the government uses ‘commercial in confidence’ to protect monopoly players that have no competition anyway. RioTinto is using Tasmania as a power socket to smelt alumina. The bauxite comes from Queensland and the aluminium is shipped out. So why is Lara buying electricity from Queensland?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 08/10/11 at 09:52 AM

After hearing the torrent of meaningless, motor-mouthed drivel emanating from Michelle O’Byrne on Stateline last night, I have to agree with Andrew about the chronic lack of leadership around here. It was almost cut to Airlie Ward doing the crossword. A pre-programmed Energiser Bunny in glasses ranting on with non-stop apparatchik pollie-speak. You were dead right about State politicians, Mr Wilkie (well, mostly, anyway. I agree with #7 and I was there, too). So, don’t worry about not being a great orator. You’re still a bloody sight better to listen to than Lara, Will, The O’Byrnes, Green and the rest of our “leadership” team of sorry under-achievers.

Posted by Thelonious on 08/10/11 at 10:58 AM

Disappointing. Nothing much new in this. Fair enough, parliament is fairly elected…but it is not representative. The Lib/Lab system has us represented by lawyers, small businessmen, party hacks and union officials. But we know all this…what is the solution? Wilkie and Oakeshott will be gone next election or if they survive, will become irrelevant under a majority government. We will be back to business as usual. We need an alternative party or movement. We need to get rid of the two party preferred system to rid us of the plague of the two party monopoly. This is what should be debated!

Posted by Peter Smith on 08/10/11 at 12:43 PM

I agree with Karl where he points to the corporate world versus individual Australians. Lobbying by many associations results not only in adopted policies but often in specifically appointed politicians. Both the ALP (CFMEU; AMU etc) and the Liberals (Coal Assoc; ANM etc) have people there to ensure any legislation is favourable.

The current tax debate is about one group trying to shift the onus to the other group instead of creating a tax environment of shared responsibility. The health system keeps falling over for the same reason (Unions, AMA, Health Funds etc). The voter also expects too much. There has been no public debate or position as to where a government should spend its revenue. That is, no-one has ever articulated what an average Australian can expect from their health care system, although some people seem to be quite keen on everlasting youth.

A few years ago, Mark Latham spoke to Bob Brown and developed a policy to shift away from current forestry practices with $800 million in expenditure. He was howled down by all and sundry. In hindsight, was he mostly right or wrong? I’d suggest he was mostly right particularly how the GFC eventually killed the industry. This is the decision making and leadership we need from a political leader.

PM Gillard has now embarked on a similar path with $276 million and she is being howled down by all and sundry. Sound familiar? Is she mostly right or wrong?

They are the same as us. Let them lead and if you don’t like them then don’t vote for them.

Politicians have now become either so scared or so “clever” they don’t feel it necessary to even advise the public of their intentions. Now that lack of accountability is my greatest fear as the mob shifts around the two party system!

Posted by Mark on 08/10/11 at 03:41 PM

Without wishing to divert the thread topic i cant help thinking about another potential essay topic ‘Has the Tasmanian media failed us?

Posted by Rick on 08/10/11 at 04:54 PM

A final note to extend this same phenomenon beyond forestry and health, I invite you to consider the Mining Tax, Carbon Tax, Gambling inquiry and the GFC BER, insulation batts and bonus schemes. This were judgements made by a political party and the noise from the mob has been constant.

Most economists agree Australia need to broaden its tax base to future-proof the economy. Most also agree the $15B odd GFC schemes did not cause the current budget deficit ($40-$50B). It has been caused by structural problems in Australia’s tax system as left by Howard and Costello over 11 years along with their middle class welfare expenditure as they neared an election.

The recent tax forum had corporate versus individuals again where both sides were unwilling to increase their responsibilities. Again, we need political leadership and the mob (BCA or people) can get over it.

Posted by Mark on 08/10/11 at 05:29 PM

13: An alternative party or movement is not going to help. It is the party system that has caused problems.
If we had a parliament that was made up of individuals, it would be hard for them all to be bought by big business.
Simply make political parties illegal and ban all donations.

Posted by Robert LePage on 09/10/11 at 10:48 AM

Who’d be a politician? Andrew’s independence is a breath of fresh air and something every Parliament needs - but then, how effective is the Tasmanian Legislative Council? Maybe the independence needs to be in the so-called engine room of the lower House?

@ Mark blames the public, fair call - we keep electing the same rubbish and tolerate the ‘party system’ that ensures donations and party lines rule over the interests of the electorate. So could the general populace sustain a critical analytical approach to how the State (and Country) is being run? The media (at large) certainly doesn’t help in that regard, promoting sound-bite and poll-driven politics. The 10 second sound grab dominates the news stories and the big companies generate their own polls to create stories let alone, to fill the slow news days, use their initiative to create stories around the editorial table (KRudd counting the numbers and making another comeback this week I hear?).

Adding more parties, increasing the terms of office, making politicians more accessible are all interesting but I feel that the problems stems from a belief that being a politician is actually a career - something to aim for as an outcome from uni, union, ministerial office days - creates a flawed system where the elected officials lack the basic experience and skill to run what is a large (not-for-profit) company. But then, who’d want to be a politician?

Posted by Ann on 09/10/11 at 01:07 PM

Getting a staff job and moving on to becoming an elected representative is certainly seen as a viable career, with a nice pay packet and other luxuries while voting along party lines saves too much strain on the brain cells and ensures party support for preselection.

That’s why they would be a politician - it saves them from the real world.

It is unfortunate that the authentic ones are so rare, but then they have to work harder.

Posted by salamander on 09/10/11 at 02:16 PM

Dave,#7. I have the same Georgetown memory of a superannuated 10-year-old having a macho fantasy as he gallumphed past the protestors with a cordon of cops. Complete mediocrity, but exceptional jerk.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 09/10/11 at 04:00 PM

Politics is not failing us. That question presupposes that “politics” has some internal motivation of its own. Politics is nothing but a process and in a democracy it is a creature of the electorates own creation. We elect the practitioners of politics. Those individuals are the element in the formula that are failing to deliver. To blame politics would be like blaming gravity for the leaks because the plumber did not tighten the joints.

If we do not like the politics we are being served up we need, as a democracy, to change the type of personalities we elect to practice politics as they lead us and our public institutions.

We need to understand that party politics leads inexorably to the selection of individuals who do not understand, or willingly ignore conflict of interest. It’s insistance on party discipline ahead of the candidates own assesment of his electorates interest dictates this outcome. Continual exposure of a democratic sytem of government to individuals who have no regard for the damage conflicted interests cause results in the very problems that confront us. The calibre of political party candidates diminishes as those of a sound ethical mind see and refuse to participate in the flawed charade. This further reduces the overall calibre of representation and makes joining the charade even less attractive. This is the very problem that is driving the labor party to its current national membership drive. I argue that it has afflicted all three parties in this state. It is evident globally.

Election of independent candidates is the only remedy I can see to this malaise. Political donations reform seeks to address the issue, but will only provide temporary relief. Like asprin for cancer patients, it treats the symptom, not the cause. Those elected as party candidates signal to those intent on subverting the system that they are able to be detracted from the electorates business. The intent will be delivered on, the means will just be adjusted to suit.

The cancer analogy is apt because leadership which tolerates conflict of interest does act as a carcinogen within our public bodies, and gives rise to all manner of corruption within them. Each incidence is a tumour, and like tumours these incidences shed more individuals who are prepared to tolerate and even seek to benefit from conflicted interests. Like any cancer sufferer there is a point at which the disease becomes terminal. Someone today commented that you know when that point is reached because the people clamour for a despot to lead them.

Are those calls for “strong, decisive leadership” being misunderstood?

Posted by Simon Warriner on 09/10/11 at 06:41 PM

Lara Giddings and David Bartlett good people? I prefer to think of them as very typical homo sapiens or human primates that fit well in tribal life. They make the right noises and behave as one would expect of the human version of animals. Goodness in my view, only describes those who attempt to rise above our essential animalic nature. I cannot think of a single case of unexpected altruism free of some form of personal or party benefit from either individual. They are certainly not alone in their political endeavours.

Posted by Jon Ayling on 10/10/11 at 03:41 AM

8* Mark I think you and others on this blog are right in what your saying but you are all missing a critical point here -and so might Mr Wilkie be…

It might sound perverse but could it be possible that our crap pollies are actually a good reflection of their electorate?

Nearly 50% of Tasmanian’s are illiterate, 30% are on government handouts of some sort, we have shithouse national education outcomes, we score the lowest on most national socio -economic indicators, we are mostly aeging, quite religious and conservative, and we are deeply divided on important progressive issues..so why shouldnt our pollies be mediocre just like us?

Mediocre is Tassie to a Tee (in fact maybe this slogan should be on a tee shirt?).

When I see all the beady eyed old farts with their faces on council election posters (the ones brave enough to advertise their age anyway) I have to constanly remind myself of this brutally honest fact.

If all our pollies were in their prime of life, experienced, highly educated, strong courageous leaders then that wouldnt work too well for many Tasmanian’s now would it?

How could they feel empathy towards their leaders? At least the current parliament is an honest reflection of its populice….

Posted by Prester John on 10/10/11 at 10:11 AM

Surly when Andrew said that he believed that Lara and David where good human beings, he was only being diplomatic? That is, not burn the bridges, leave a path open for future negations etc. He couldn’t of actually meant it could he?

Posted by Mike on 10/10/11 at 12:51 PM

28: When you say that 50% of Tasmanians are illiterate, I wonder if it is because their IQ is too low.
Apparently there is a possibility that the population in the US is suffering from a diminishing IQ.
No valid theory has come to light but I am of the opinion that it could be because of our modern “way of life”.
We are exposed to an enormous amount of chemicals and vapours and have a range of pesticides and other things in our foods as well. We are exposed to a huge range of emissions, from magnetic to radio frequencies such as mobile phone transmissions.
It is proven that a lot of the chemicals we have absorbed from plastics for example, Bisphenol A, or BPA, has the ability to cause learning difficulties in children.
BPA is found in the plastics coating the inside of food tins and also in a lot of plastic bottles containing water and soft drinks.
Maybe we should be testing all voters and especially politicians to see if they have sufficient IQ to be allowed to vote and sit as politicians?

(Talking of Prester John, now there’s a book I’d forgotten all about - isn’t it terribly racist, or is my memory playing tricks? It must be nearly 40 years ago that I read it.)

Posted by Doug Nichols on 10/10/11 at 05:40 PM

#26 Actually Doug, my favourite was “populice”, the last word in his criticism of Tasmanian literacy standards. What a hoot!!

Posted by Peter Henning on 10/10/11 at 07:04 PM

I guess if you put your trust in politicians to make our society function in a healthy and harmonious manner we’re bound to be disappointed. The hubris of political power does things to these critters, and it doesn’t matter what jernsey they wear - Blue, Red or Green on Indigo!

I am sorry to say this but when you elect a politician be prepared to be disappointed and remember they have more in common with each other than they have with their constituents. It was ever thus. Perhaps that’s why Nick McKim can be a little devil to Bartlett before the election (and vice versa) and riding mates after!

Posted by David Obendorf on 10/10/11 at 08:55 PM

Two questions spring to mind from last Thursday’s lecture. I should have stuck my hand up at the meeting I suppose, but then I only thought of one of them afterwards.

1) Mr Wilkie said “I do feel personally [...] that the Greens made an error of judgement by going into the Cabinet at this point in time.

I certainly agree that it has muted their highly effective voice in opposition. But could the Labor members have formed a functioning cabinet without the addition of a couple of extra people to boost their numbers? With 35 members in total the answer would be yes, but as things stand they would have been struggling (even more than they are now, that is).

2) With regard to the animal export issue, Mr Wilkie said his new private members bill “will specifically include stunning”.

That sounds like good news to me, but (and correct me if I’m wrong) are there not some abattoirs in Australia that kill without stunning? To avoid accusations of hypocrisy wouldn’t we have to insist on 100% stunning domestically if we are going to insist on it for our exported animals?

Posted by Doug Nichols on 10/10/11 at 09:36 PM

Back to a useful discussion… if Lara Giddings and David Bartlett are, in Andrew Wilkie’s estimation, “good people”; question: who are the “bad people” in Tasmania, Andrew? Or aren’t there any of those in Tasmania?

Seems like it’s back to that Good-vs-Evil God-delusion logic - “love the sinner but abhor the sin”, is it?

So where is our New Age religion called the Tasmanian Integrity Commission(TIC)? Does it give a tick of approval for Tasmania’s governance? Apparently so!

Richard Flanagan on ABC1 - Q&A last night discussed this; most public policy is a battle between Control and Compassion and Control always wins!

Recent examples in Tasmania like the Forest Peace Deal with the engagement of 3 unrepresentative eNGOs with a group of forestry interest groups; another is the Tasmania Greens going into Government with a State Labor Party with such a long track record of crony capitalism and total control. Very disappointing goverance in both cases!

If you can’t vote for a person that you’re confident in, just vote informal. And get involved in activism that doesn’t rely on any politician as your ‘Saviour’.

Posted by David Obendorf on 11/10/11 at 08:50 AM

I’m very sorry I wasn’t able to attend this important session, and I’ve only just been able to access TT. I think Andrew is right on the button. Although I think Gillard is an unprincipled opportunist (and Abbott worse in all respects), it is true that the House of Reps has achieved much positive legislation, given that the Malaysian solution won’t make it if Tony Crook sticks to his guns – and it is the Lower House independents (and one gutsy Labor Party member) who are responsible for all those achievements.

What a different story in Tasmania. Not wishing to debate who are or are not “good people”, the fact is this state has been atrociously governed since the nineties, and especially since Jim Bacon et al decreased the sizes of the two houses. Andrew gives a nice example of that on the budget. Fools and spendthrifts like Bacon, Lennon, Bartlett and Aird wasted our resources using appalling priorities and now we do have to reign in, it is not being done strategically but by primary school arithmetic: slice a bit off everything. All concerned please stand in the corner for an hour after school.

This is the crucial difference between the hung parliaments federally and here in Tas. Federally, those holding the balance of power held the government to account; in Tasmania, they joined them. That was the huge mistake Cassie and Nick made in allowing themselves to be press-ganged —or is bribed the word? – into taking ministries: they could not hold the government to account and they bloody well needed holding. The hidden agenda behind offering ministries seems to have been accurately captured by The Examiner (for a change) who reports that when Nick McKim was sworn in at Government House, Bartlett and Bryan Green were reported as exchanging ‘looks of glee … like boys at school whose plan had worked.’(Examiner, 22nd April 2010). Labor cunning or mischievous reporting?

As to solutions, surely the recruitment of political candidates is first and foremost: not party hacks, but people who have lived and sweated out there where people are doing it tough, who also have a record of achievement in living their lives – are authentic, in other words. Second, in Tas of course we need more politicians – but at the expense of the Upper House? Probably not. I think we need a house of review – but one of genuine independents, maybe of nonpoliticians who are appointed from a rotating panel according to their expertise in the legislation they will be presented with. The crypto-party members we have to some extent at present can easily mislead us into thinking they are issue bound in their decisions when their loyalty is to a party. Party politics is deeply rooted in the Australian psyche and while it in turn is rooting our polity, we can’t yet go the whole hog of abolishing government by parties—getting a bit too unrealistically idealistic there. But we can I hope give independents a bigger say here in Tas politics – the Bill Wedds and Rex Townleys to those with long memories – and achieve the outcomes that Andrew and his colleagues are doing at the Federal level. Better still, would that Andrew himself would stand at State level once his Federal job has been done.

Posted by John Biggs on 13/10/11 at 06:45 PM

#32. Sorry, a gutsy National Party member (Tony Crook) not Labor as I hastily wrote. A serious diminution of political virtue there—but as Bob Brown said, the right outcome for the wrong reasons. If only a Labor Party MP had defied their leader and upheld Labor party policy by so doing!

Posted by John Biggs on 14/10/11 at 10:47 AM

Unfortunately retaining the Legislative Council as a House of Review (what do we really mean though) does not do very much to improve the Parliament. If it functioned well, it would probably reduce the House of Assembly to a Ministerial selection pool, and at what expense?

Posted by Brian Austen on 18/10/11 at 10:12 AM

if there was an andrew wilkie’s tasmania party i would totally join. there aren’t many politicians worthy of imperium.

Posted by ben on 31/10/11 at 08:18 AM

Of course politic has failed us, this article is 3 years old and nothing has changed, just got a lot worse.

Wilke is no different to any other ideologue, trapped in the distant past and unable or unwilling to step into the future. He wants to stick with the failed approaches destroying our future and has not one policy of any worth for our real future. Just more of the same elitist ideological crap and where is his policies which will take forward safely and happily, there are none because he doesn’t have a clue and no different to all the incumbents.

Real leaders take the people where they want to go, in the best, safest and most comfortable way. Deluded psychopathic ideologues, force the people with their lies and corrupt practices, to go in the direction they demand and we see the results all around us.

There is only one form of political party any sensible evolving human would be involved in, one designed to get rid of the party system and put power fully in the hands of the people, circumventing all the influence of vested interests, lobby groups and ideological elites.

This rehashed article is proof nothing has changed, just got worse and will continue that way under the deep denial of reality, human ideologues are locked into for their entire lives.

Posted by A.K. on 09/09/14 at 09:39 AM

I too query Andrew Wilkie’s version of Lara Giddings and David Bartlett as being good people!

Politically both were failures, comparing them to Lennon it could be said both were better people although totally incapable of leadership to regenerate the standing of Labor after the Gunns Tamar Valley Pulp Mill disaster.

Barty backed away before the next hot topic lead to the demise of Labor through its poorly orchestrated Peace Talks support campaign with the agitating Greens in tow till the public became fed up with the political maneuvering and finally gave Labor/Green the flick in March 2014 after 4-5 years of time wasting nonsense.

Looking back the “egotistical Headmistress” made her first fatal mistake when she was Health Minister over the controversial waterfront public hospital saga.

Obviously it was the wrong site; after that the ability to follow up with a more practical greenfield site was lost in the confusion of internal politics at the time.

Andrew Wilkie has continually worn the headache of coming to grips with the economic inefficiencies of the old Royal redevelopment, one day he will look back and shake his head “Why didn’t Labor at the time seize the opportunity to develop a new public hospital facility to serve Southern Tasmania during this century!”

All I can say I am glad the Liberals under Will Hodgman are making a better go of it after six months of power than Labor ever achieved under Bartlett and Giddings.

Posted by Robin Charles Halton on 10/09/14 at 06:58 PM

#36 Robin,

“All I can say I am glad the Liberals under Will Hodgman are making a better go of it after six months of power than Labor ever achieved under Bartlett and Giddings.”

You need to provide proof of this “better go of it”, when the facts are the complete opposite. If you have a one track last century mind, you would support going back to the dead past. If you were someone with 21st century understanding, you’d see the incumbents of all persuasions are as useless as each other and getting worse by the day.

Our health system should reflect the facts, not the propaganda put forward by the pharmaceutical industry and it’s compliant medical professionals, who in the majority are only capable of ordering tests and prescribing drugs. They know nothing of real health and we see that reality in our entire health system.

Current medical approach is great for traumatic or genetic problems. But when it comes to health regimes and approaches, the medical profession fully supports the worst approach to health they possibly can, so they can make as much money from the misery they create and support.

Posted by A.K. on 13/09/14 at 06:59 AM

Indeed, case in point. St John’s Wort is cheaper to produce than ‘conventional’ pharmaceuticals, has been demonstrated to be just as effective in some cases, and with fewer side effects, yet it remains more costly to consumers as no herbal medications are considered on the pbs becuase thay have no ‘sponsor’ - ie. wealthy patent holder. It could potentially lead to greater health outcomes and less cost to government,but in France it has been banned because it interacts with some other medications. ridiculous argument. medications interact with medications, why not ban then all. Herbal interactions are as well documented as conventional interactions and can be easily avoided by doctors who take half a minute to look them up on a database.

Another case in point, when the gst was introduced, the tax on junk food went from 22% to 10%, while the tax on healthy convenience meals went from 0% to 10%. Public health policy obviously took a holiday that day.

Posted by Ben Cannon on 14/09/14 at 08:47 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.